Chris PowellForced into the open, McMahon is defensive

On appearances Democratic Senate candidate Chris Murphy has won his two debates with Republican Senate candidate Linda McMahon because of his familiarity with issues, his being specific, and his greater articulateness. Despite her constant references to her "six-point jobs plan," McMahon has no command of specifics and defaults to complaining generally about the "failed policies" of the national Democratic administration and about Murphy's having been late with rent and mortgage payments five years ago. McMahon has tired and lost focus toward the end of the debates.

Each candidate continues to throw fantastic nonsense at the other.

Murphy misconstrues as a scheme to repeal Social Security McMahon's musing six months ago that government spending programs generally should include "sunset" provisions to force their review from time to time.

Advertisement

McMahon says Murphy voted to give a $400 million bailout to a bank that gave him a discounted mortgage. But Murphy voted only for the emergency bank stabilization legislation sought urgently by a Republican president, under which his mortgage issuer, like scores of other banks, temporarily borrowed money from the government, and he got no discount at all on his mortgage. Indeed, McMahon's charge of corruption could be made against dozens of members of Congress of both parties who voted for the emergency legislation while holding or seeking home mortgages from banks.

McMahon's early onslaught of personal attack ads on television and radio started this nonsense and it bit her in the second debate when, asked if she would ever cease the attacks on Murphy and concentrate on issues instead, she just reiterated the attacks. Murphy noted the irony and the audience burst into laughter.

Murphy has scored by defending "Obamacare," describing specific cases of catastrophic illness where, without "Obamacare," people would be ruined and noting that the Republican mantra of "repeal and replace" has been a fraud, there being no proposal to "replace." Murphy has scored even more by pressing McMahon on issues where national Republican doctrine is a big loser in Connecticut -- Social Security, Medicare, abortion, and such. McMahon can only insist over and over that she would be independent of her party.

When debate panelist Laurie Perez of WTIC-TV61 asked what may be the most important question of the Senate campaign -- Why should your party control the Senate? -- McMahon again could only default to "failed policies" without providing specifics. Murphy pounced, warning that McMahon's election would give control of the Senate to the radical right.

Of course all this doesn't make McMahon wrong on the issues, insofar as she understands any as she wages what is really only an off-the-shelf campaign, nor does it mean that a Republican Senate would not be an improvement. Indeed, a certain point of view on issues is the only reason for voting for McMahon, since she has no qualification for high office beyond the great wealth with which she bought the Republican nomination and now seeks to buy the election, and since her background as wrestling exhibition magnate, purveyor of lurid violence and sex, is a disqualification.

All this means simply that, at last forced out into the open from behind her commercials and consultants, McMahon has been on the defensive in the debates, just as Murphy's campaign and his urgent assistance from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee have put McMahon on the defensive in the air war, where she lately has had to respond to attacks on her as much as she makes her own attacks on Murphy.

It doesn't seem to have been noticed but in the second debate Murphy broke with his party too -- on the war in Afghanistan, which he said should be ended immediately. Ironically, McMahon endorsed the position of President Obama for gradual withdrawal, as if the war isn't the worst "failed policy" of all.

Chris Powell is managing editor of the Journal Inquirer in Manchester, Conn.